It’s even more fun when photographing little King Fishers soaring through the air then dive bombing down into the water all while taking and adjusting with manual focus
@@Poisonous_Owlgood luck trying to get a fast moving bird in even a somewhat closish distance. The FOV becomes narrowly thin and you won’t be able to see whether you hit the bird until you open the picture on a big screen. Good AF improves the hit rate massively and massively moves the statistics of getting a good picture in your favor.
The method described here will have negative effects on image quality. It’s basically desaturating high contrast edges to zero. But hey, this is how they’re able to sell a lens like this for so cheap.
@@tormaid42 i know this method kills sharpness but i dont know editing well so i dont have another option. My lens has higher quality so i dont have problems like this but i still get chromatic aberration when i zoom in enuogh
If you look at the optical formula they published you can see that it's actually an entry level astrophotography telescope with the field flattener lens element group built in, plus an iris, a helicoid focuser and a tiny little built in teleconverter. The build style is much more like those little telescopes than a military lens. Check out williams optics if you want to see more lenses like this with better optics. They have focal lengths available well past a metre
Good sharpness, the purple fringing not unexpected at that price. However spend a little more and get an old used lightweight canon FD 500mm f4.5 with fluorite..
that should be a lot heavier tho. resolution between the two would be very interesting given film equates to low double digit mps and this is a hyper budget tele. id be curious to see how either one perform on a modern 20+mp sensor or even crop sensor
I bought an 800mm on Amazon for $90 and it's actually great. Full manual ofc and it fringes a lot, but fixable and very useable - especially for a hobbyist with no money
@@SenseiFritz labelled as "BENOISON 420-800mm Telephoto Lens" do not expect to shoot cover photos for nature mags with it but as hobby or Instagram, it's pretty good and the price is amazing. Does need quite a bit of de-fringing if that is something that bothers you, so if you're a no edit purist it might not be for you :P
@@Xethl Thanks! Hahahaha.... i don't expect Wonders for that price. But seldom i need more tele than my 200mm for animals (slow or almost not moving), the moon and so on. Fringing isn't a big problem for me..... or for Photoshop. ;-)
@@SenseiFritz I'm not sure how much experience you have so just in case I should warn if you're used to digital, digital cameras essentially simulate the photos on their display they don't show you what's ACTUALLY happening. Because this lens is very cheap it has no chip meaning your camera will likely just through a tantrum when simulating because it doesn't know what aperture it is, just turn off the simulation and get some test shots to see what level your shutter and ISO should be :) if you already know what you're doing, apologies for the useless info!
I bought this lens 2 Weeks ago and its great for that price. I like the stiff Focus ring, because it feels good when I have to Focus a small focus area. The black corners and the chromatic aberations aren` t the big of a Problem. Cool short, too, I like your videos.
Long telephoto lenses are no rocket science, especially without AF and IS and if you compromise on color correction and aperture. For all I need, my very old tele zoom 70-200 f/4 (constant) is more than enough, combined with 46 MPixel to crop in.
Wide open at 6.3? That's the key right there. I would like to see more examples in a less frenetic vid. But it looks like a worthwhile look. The Leica Noctilux has similar fringing, so...
I think I’m going to buy it, manual focusing is a really good exercise to be present while taking the shot, and it is great to seat with a lens like that on a porch and or in a camping site and taking photos while been relaxed
I bought this and found that focusing was extremely difficult. The images the were in focus were good. But nailing the focus down was so hard I returned the lens.
I actually have bought this lens, and when i was on a Trip in Italy with it it served me well, especially photographing smaller wildlife thats relatively close (about 5m) is a ton of fun. Especially Lizards, butterflies and the likes. You can get basically macro shots without being so close that you scare them away.
Cheap is when something saves you Time and Effort. So therefore this Lens really isn't cheap. I worry far less about the manual focusing part as opposed to having to correct lens faults in Software. Would love to see Viltrox counter with a Super Telephoto in the 300 to 400mm range at 5.6 with better Glass but still only manual. Most wouldn't mind spending a little bit extra for that.
I'd probably pick up a vintage lens at the same focal length for less. It might have a bit less contrast because of the older coatings, but should otherwise be similar.
Well for such a long focal length and low cost, can't say i'm surprised by the chromatic aberration, vignetting, and lack of autofocus. The low cost has to come from somewhere
Nah, the Sarblue Mak60 telescope using a t-adapter gives you 750mm in a tiny lightweight package. I mount mine upside down so I can dial the focus with my other hand while shooting. Currently it goes for $129 on Amazon. 😎
@@TomCalton I made my TT experience and for me the built quality is super cheap. And thats OK, its a cheap lens. But I need a workhorse, something I can count on…
No good at all! I bought a brand new Nikon 70-300mm for $200 !!! It's extremely cheap. I used it for professional purposes, it's sharp and flawless! It has Autofocus & Vibration Reduction, which means you can use it without a tripod !!! The photos taken with it look much better than with my 50mm pancake, yeah, it's true!
Nope. Even if it’s cheap, it’s still a waste of money because before long, you’ll quickly tire of using it because manual focusing at 500mm is irritating. The lens will just gather dust. No thanks. Use the $329 elsewhere.
This sounds like a great deal for this low price. Do you or someone else know how good it works on an aps-c camera? And does the lens work on dslr camera's? It would be nice to know that
Whilst I agree it's cheap it's not much use if there's loads of CA. I'm convinced there no ED glass in it . And it would be better if it had ED glass even it meant being twice as expensive Wouldn't buy as it stands
Manual focus on such a long lens, never again thank you. And also, why buy this over a Nikon/canon/Olympus old manual focus lenses? With an adapter they would work and most of them are of good quality. If you are gonna defringe anyway I see no reason to buy this
Not bad for deep sky astrophotography either. I mean look, it's $300, you're not going to get the best, but really, it's $300, which is bargain for a lens like that. No AF sucks for wildlife, sports, etc, but deep sky photography or stuff where focus isn't a huge issue, it's pretty damn good for the price.
The biggest challenge on these lenses is focusing.
as a definitely not broke photographer who shoots on lots of old manual focus glass, you can get used to it, if you tolerate the sore wrists!
@@no.7893 i really laughed at this reply but i really agree and feel you
How much? Find title get buy
@@no.7893 same here i have more then 30 vintage lenses
Agree. I have my nikkor AF 75-300mm with my Nikon Z30 and its very hard to focus on something far away from me.
Photographing wildlife in manual focus is insanely difficult, would not buy it
skill issue
I only use manual lenses for wildlife lol. It's actually pretty easy
It’s even more fun when photographing little King Fishers soaring through the air then dive bombing down into the water all while taking and adjusting with manual focus
@@Poisonous_Owlgood luck trying to get a fast moving bird in even a somewhat closish distance. The FOV becomes narrowly thin and you won’t be able to see whether you hit the bird until you open the picture on a big screen.
Good AF improves the hit rate massively and massively moves the statistics of getting a good picture in your favor.
@@christophmuller3511 that's still describing a skill issue. Been hitting flying birds for 30 years.
No autofocus on such large focal length would be a nightmare. Maybe buildings, ok, but anything moving would be so difficult
Also thanks for showing how to get rid of that purple lines around the objects😄
These purple lines called chromatic aberration
@@alex_fuji yep i know. Im good at photography but suck at editing
@@Emre-cw7nk editing is not that hard. Try to watch some Lightroom or Capture One tutorials, this should help
The method described here will have negative effects on image quality. It’s basically desaturating high contrast edges to zero. But hey, this is how they’re able to sell a lens like this for so cheap.
@@tormaid42 i know this method kills sharpness but i dont know editing well so i dont have another option. My lens has higher quality so i dont have problems like this but i still get chromatic aberration when i zoom in enuogh
this thing is worth more than my camera...
Take my money
If you look at the optical formula they published you can see that it's actually an entry level astrophotography telescope with the field flattener lens element group built in, plus an iris, a helicoid focuser and a tiny little built in teleconverter. The build style is much more like those little telescopes than a military lens.
Check out williams optics if you want to see more lenses like this with better optics. They have focal lengths available well past a metre
Exactly what I used mine for until I purchased a Redcat 51.
Damn... Spying on your neighbours got me 😂😂
im trying to get the birds i swear
😂 what kind of bird would it be a boobie bird 😂
Good sharpness, the purple fringing not unexpected at that price. However spend a little more and get an old used lightweight canon FD 500mm f4.5 with fluorite..
that should be a lot heavier tho. resolution between the two would be very interesting given film equates to low double digit mps and this is a hyper budget tele. id be curious to see how either one perform on a modern 20+mp sensor or even crop sensor
For under $400 i would totally buy it
Only if i had $400😭
mood! 😂
Is 329
Yes I would buy it and just defringe in Lightroom
I will really love to have one
I bought an 800mm on Amazon for $90 and it's actually great. Full manual ofc and it fringes a lot, but fixable and very useable - especially for a hobbyist with no money
Which lens is it?
@@SenseiFritz labelled as "BENOISON 420-800mm Telephoto Lens" do not expect to shoot cover photos for nature mags with it but as hobby or Instagram, it's pretty good and the price is amazing. Does need quite a bit of de-fringing if that is something that bothers you, so if you're a no edit purist it might not be for you :P
@@Xethl Thanks! Hahahaha.... i don't expect Wonders for that price. But seldom i need more tele than my 200mm for animals (slow or almost not moving), the moon and so on. Fringing isn't a big problem for me..... or for Photoshop. ;-)
@@SenseiFritz I'm not sure how much experience you have so just in case I should warn if you're used to digital, digital cameras essentially simulate the photos on their display they don't show you what's ACTUALLY happening. Because this lens is very cheap it has no chip meaning your camera will likely just through a tantrum when simulating because it doesn't know what aperture it is, just turn off the simulation and get some test shots to see what level your shutter and ISO should be :) if you already know what you're doing, apologies for the useless info!
@@Xethl You don't need to apologise for anything, my friend. I'm GRATEFUL for your help. 🙏🏻
pretty nice, but without autofocus for such a long focal length, it's going to be kind of hard ngl
I shot the eclipse with it.
Where is the photo?
That's I think the best application for this lens
U use eclipse filter. Camrea lens. Get same effect if u dont have right glasses
Yup, and that’s the only time you’ll use it.
@@forbeginnersandbeyond6089 I use it for b-roll too!
I bought this lens 2 Weeks ago and its great for that price. I like the stiff Focus ring, because it feels good when I have to Focus a small focus area. The black corners and the chromatic aberations aren` t the big of a Problem.
Cool short, too, I like your videos.
Love the CS sound clip
Good lense for the price.
Long telephoto lenses are no rocket science, especially without AF and IS and if you compromise on color correction and aperture.
For all I need, my very old tele zoom 70-200 f/4 (constant) is more than enough, combined with 46 MPixel to crop in.
I would get this thing for shooting the moon or solar eclipse
Wide open at 6.3? That's the key right there. I would like to see more examples in a less frenetic vid. But it looks like a worthwhile look. The Leica Noctilux has similar fringing, so...
f6.3......wide open? 😁 😂 😀
Well, it is 500mm after all .........
That’s normal for 500mm
@@raudelravelo1169 lest you have some 10k lying around just to burn on a prime you are right.
Hard no. Manual focus on wildlife is highly impractical.
People do it all of the time successfully. Been doing it for 30 years. How do you think we did it in the 80s?
The missing image stabilisation would bother me more than the missing autofocus. If you that tight on a budget I would look for something second hand.
Which 500mm lens with image stabilization comes for that low price second hand ? I will get one
Not a prime, but you can get a zoom that's f6.3 at 500mm and probably sharper.
i just bought 10 year old Sigma 50-500mm AF OS, for just little over 400€. definitely better deal than this prime lens 😁
What I look in a lens that large. 1) weight 2) sharpness 3) build quality.
That lens does the job right for the price.
I think I’m going to buy it, manual focusing is a really good exercise to be present while taking the shot, and it is great to seat with a lens like that on a porch and or in a camping site and taking photos while been relaxed
It’s a good deal but when you zoom in the word “sharp” isn’t what I would say about it
I know that Cathedral!! Local?
Peterborough right?
@@jaroslavzavesky yes sir!
Pick them up in its old form factor on line or at yard sales ect. $50
Most of them has fungus and that causes image to not be sharp
Amazing lens
For the price, it looks amazing!
I got it for moon photography since the subject is not that fast-moving. I really like it!
"Would you consider buying this lens"
no, my wallet cannot go in the negatives
Apart from that yes
Wait… hold a damn second here…. THERES A DEFRINGING SLIDER IN LIGHTROOM?!? I totally didn’t know this!!!!
That pigeon looks high AF
I would. I still shoot with the 80s Tokina 400mm 5.6 RMC. Oddly, it appears the Ca is much better in that old Tokina
Bro said 'just' before $329😭
Biggest issue will be manual focussing at 500mm. Good luck photographing anything that moves
I bought this and found that focusing was extremely difficult. The images the were in focus were good. But nailing the focus down was so hard I returned the lens.
I actually have bought this lens, and when i was on a Trip in Italy with it it served me well, especially photographing smaller wildlife thats relatively close (about 5m) is a ton of fun. Especially Lizards, butterflies and the likes. You can get basically macro shots without being so close that you scare them away.
Bri casually pulls out a 500mm lens 💀💀😭😭
for the price its good, the purple line is not that bad because for the price
Especially for my crop camera, yes that's a neat lens to know about
Cheap is when something saves you Time and Effort. So therefore this Lens really isn't cheap. I worry far less about the manual focusing part as opposed to having to correct lens faults in Software. Would love to see Viltrox counter with a Super Telephoto in the 300 to 400mm range at 5.6 with better Glass but still only manual. Most wouldn't mind spending a little bit extra for that.
I'd probably pick up a vintage lens at the same focal length for less. It might have a bit less contrast because of the older coatings, but should otherwise be similar.
Well for such a long focal length and low cost, can't say i'm surprised by the chromatic aberration, vignetting, and lack of autofocus. The low cost has to come from somewhere
Of course I would! I want to take a good look at the moon!
I buy this lens.
Eyedropper that purple fringe you don’t just crank the slider, tune it to the specific hue
For 425$ you can get a vintage Nikkor f4 thats superior to this.
When I was in the military we had military style text on everything. I think.
Try crazy USSR lense "MTO-1000" or "MTO-11"
Added to my list - thanks for the suggestion!
I usually removed chromatic aberation by masking it with 0 saturation but this makes it a lot easier
Is this in Peterborough?
Nah, the Sarblue Mak60 telescope using a t-adapter gives you 750mm in a tiny lightweight package. I mount mine upside down so I can dial the focus with my other hand while shooting. Currently it goes for $129 on Amazon. 😎
So why does it not even have autofocus?😂
Because then it would be more like 1000 bucks! ;)
What about old MTO 500mm?
The Sigma 100-400 DG DN lens is around $570 here in Japan. Loss of 100mm but a far more usable lens for not a whole lot more money.
Thats impressive for the price - even if it will demand that you manually focus it.
Heyy is that the Cathedral in Peterborough
How does the slider work digitally to detect purple fringing and remove them without remove the intended purple colour in the picture?
Would it be possible to get this lens for a Leica M?
I've got an old Tamron 200-500mm lens that I use with my A5000 and it only cost me $80, works perfectly fine.
That's a fair bit of chromatic aberration but at least it's possible to correct for
no need, I prefer my 500mm PF
For the price, i can see a lot of people giving it a shot. Great for taking low quality images of birds and neighbors. 😂
the biggest challenge with tta is how long does the cheap lens will survive before you need to throw it in the trash ….
You don't need to worry about that with this one. You could hammer in nails with it 🤣
@@TomCalton I made my TT experience and for me the built quality is super cheap. And thats OK, its a cheap lens. But I need a workhorse, something I can count on…
That’s Cathedral in Peterborough I live near it lol 😂
Interesting. I think I would rather pay $100 more for a used Canon RF 600mm f11.
No good at all! I bought a brand new Nikon 70-300mm for $200 !!! It's extremely cheap. I used it for professional purposes, it's sharp and flawless! It has Autofocus & Vibration Reduction, which means you can use it without a tripod !!! The photos taken with it look much better than with my 50mm pancake, yeah, it's true!
I bought one.
Nope. Even if it’s cheap, it’s still a waste of money because before long, you’ll quickly tire of using it because manual focusing at 500mm is irritating. The lens will just gather dust. No thanks. Use the $329 elsewhere.
Not no, HEEEECK NO!
I got a used sigma 150-600 c with a 1.4x tc for $550. I would say that provides a ton more value than this lens.
Nah, I’ll pass. I’m not a wildlife photographer and neither do I find any value in spying on my neighbors. Looks nice though. :)
Looking forward to seeing a person with this thing at the beach or in civil public. :-D
Ideal for my nikon d3100😅
1kmm on MFT baby
Dark patches? There is name for that....
Why bother? Just keep saving and get a lens that will realistically be useful for wildlife.
Lack of autofocus is a no go for me.
This sounds like a great deal for this low price. Do you or someone else know how good it works on an aps-c camera? And does the lens work on dslr camera's? It would be nice to know that
The dark spots are caused by Sony's emount being too small.
Did it have a af?
Haha wide open F6.3 😂
For sure you didn't mention it doesn't have autofocus.
Does it have AF
Don't mind for spying
Whilst I agree it's cheap it's not much use if there's loads of CA. I'm convinced there no ED glass in it . And it would be better if it had ED glass even it meant being twice as expensive Wouldn't buy as it stands
No
How abput a used 150-500(600)mm.got mine for 350€ from a camera store in good condition.
yummy astro lens
Manual focus on such a long lens, never again thank you. And also, why buy this over a Nikon/canon/Olympus old manual focus lenses? With an adapter they would work and most of them are of good quality. If you are gonna defringe anyway I see no reason to buy this
Not bad for deep sky astrophotography either. I mean look, it's $300, you're not going to get the best, but really, it's $300, which is bargain for a lens like that. No AF sucks for wildlife, sports, etc, but deep sky photography or stuff where focus isn't a huge issue, it's pretty damn good for the price.
Just get a second hand Tamron 150/600 better in every way...
紫霞仙子😅
This is for sleeping wildlife ?
better to add some money and buy something better used
Buy Lumix FZ300 instead
Worst company 😭